My Opinion: No moves. Play out the season.

[hasoos]

I don't want any trades aimed at helping this season, if it significantly affects the future (trading someone like Batum, Bayless or Rudy)...unless the trade will also help into the future. It's not important to do a little bit better this season, in terms of record. It's important to get all the ducks lined up for next season and beyond. So if a good consolidation trade, that makes sense in a "next year" context, comes along...I'd do it, even if it means decimating depth this year even further. I want Bayless (and Batum and Rudy when they're back) to play big minutes, to make their roles next year much less ambiguous. Use this season as fodder for next season...forget record and do things that will help next year's team. By that I don't mean tank and try to lose...I'll still be happy when they win games. But winning games this year shouldn't be the focus of coaching or GM moves.

Agreed. I want to find out what we really have in some of these players, and find out if they can play together effectivly. That can go a long ways towards making intelligent trades later if adjustments are needed. If you know exactly what you have, and how it does or does not fit, it allows a much easier judgement call than wondering how Bayless plays when he doesn't get any run on the court.

 

[Schilly]

I don't want any trades aimed at helping this season, if it significantly affects the future (trading someone like Batum, Bayless or Rudy)...unless the trade will also help into the future. It's not important to do a little bit better this season, in terms of record. It's important to get all the ducks lined up for next season and beyond. So if a good consolidation trade, that makes sense in a "next year" context, comes along...I'd do it, even if it means decimating depth this year even further. I want Bayless (and Batum and Rudy when they're back) to play big minutes, to make their roles next year much less ambiguous. Use this season as fodder for next season...forget record and do things that will help next year's team. By that I don't mean tank and try to lose...I'll still be happy when they win games. But winning games this year shouldn't be the focus of coaching or GM moves.

I agree 100%. The notion that missing the playoffs this season will have any kind of cataclysmic affect on the team going forward, is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I don't want any trades aimed at helping this season, if it significantly affects the future (trading someone like Batum, Bayless or Rudy)...unless the trade will also help into the future. It's not important to do a little bit better this season, in terms of record. It's important to get all the ducks lined up for next season and beyond. So if a good consolidation trade, that makes sense in a "next year" context, comes along...I'd do it, even if it means decimating depth this year even further. I want Bayless (and Batum and Rudy when they're back) to play big minutes, to make their roles next year much less ambiguous. Use this season as fodder for next season...forget record and do things that will help next year's team. By that I don't mean tank and try to lose...I'll still be happy when they win games. But winning games this year shouldn't be the focus of coaching or GM moves.

Fully agreed, which is why I've floated the idea a couple of times of seeing just how available Anthony Randolph really is. To me that is a longterm move, especially now with Joel's future in doubt (and frankly Greg's too). I'd reluctantly offer up Rudy when he's back and healthy (along with Steve and possibly Trav and take back a contract they want to get rid of) so the Dubs at least get a player who is somewhat comparable in talent and potential. In the short term it means we lose some backcourt depth and a fan favorite, but we potentially shore up our frontcourt in the near term and potentially in the long term. I guess I see AR as a kind of third man in a 3 big rotation with he, LMA and Greg cycling through and logging 30+ minutes a night. God only knows if that's something that would whet the appetite of Nellie though.

 

[craigehlo]

I don't want any trades aimed at helping this season, if it significantly affects the future (trading someone like Batum, Bayless or Rudy)...

It's almost going to be impossible to make a deal for a quality big without including one of those guys. There's almost no trade that comes without risk at this point.

Any trade for a post player is a move for both the present and long-term. We need the help now and I bet Joel's rehab is going to make him unavailable at the start of the 2010 season.

 

[Minstrel]

Fully agreed, which is why I've floated the idea a couple of times of seeing just how available Anthony Randolph really is. To me that is a longterm move, especially now with Joel's future in doubt (and frankly Greg's too). I'd reluctantly offer up Rudy when he's back and healthy (along with Steve and possibly Trav and take back a contract they want to get rid of) so the Dubs at least get a player who is somewhat comparable in talent and potential. In the short term it means we lose some backcourt depth and a fan favorite, but we potentially shore up our frontcourt in the near term and potentially in the long term.

I love Randolph's talent and would be very interested in trading for him. Of the three kids (Batum, Bayless and Rudy), I'd reluctantly trade Rudy first. If a deal centering around Rudy could snag Randolph, I'd be quite happy. This is the kind of deal I'd endorse too...it happens to help this year (the team is still deep in guards, but has nothing up front outside of Aldridge) and it adds to the talent base long-term (as I think Randolph is a bigger talent than Rudy). If the Warriors are willing to let Randolph go for some cap relief and a talented guard, Pritchard should definitely look into it.

 

[Minstrel]

It's almost going to be impossible to make a deal for a quality big without including one of those guys. There's almost no trade that comes without risk at this point.

You cut that line off too early. I said I'd be willing to trade any of those guys for someone who'll be a part of the team's longer-term future. I'm not looking for a no-risk deal...I just want to avoid trading one of those three for a band-aid deal. This season's success isn't important enough for that.

Any trade for a post player is a move for both the present and long-term. We need the help now and I bet Joel's rehab is going to make him unavailable at the start of the 2010 season.

No, any trade for a big man won't necessarily be a move that helps long-term. Trading for a Marcus Camby type of player wouldn't help long-term. Or, trading for a player who's not very good just to get a big body here now would also be an example of a trade for a big man that wouldn't help long-term.